Talk:Walsh School of Foreign Service

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

To not include the statement that a school, whose international affairs faculty includes two former United Nations Ambassadors, a former Secretary of State, a former C.I.A. Director, the former Spanish Prime Minister and a former Presidential Advisor for National Security Affairs, is "among the best diplomatic schools in the world," is the biased and non-neutral point of view. The statement, literally has the same level of unassailability as a statement that "the earth is round" or the "White House is white." No educated, culturally literate person living in the world in the early 21st Century could possibly challenge it.

While I did not make the 6/6/05 comment concerning enrolling SFS students, it is a fact that the admissions yield rate for SFS is very high versus its competition. Information I have seen in various admission fact sheets and newsletters (from sources such as US News, the Insider's Guide to Colleges and the schools themselves) indicate that the range of the middle 50% verbal SAT score for the accepted SFS class is between 700 to 780, which is almost identical to the 700-790 range at Harvard and 690-790 range at Yale and slightly higher than Stanford's range of 670-780. (The differences are all, of course, statistically insignificant but do support the point made by the author.)

(For those want all the statistics, the average percentile class rank of a student admitted to SFS is 96.6 and the math mid 50% range is 680-770. These credentials are unimpeachably among the finest in the country. Maybe a half dozen, and certainly no more than eight to ten and probably no more than two or three undergraduate colleges in the nation equal or exceed this accepted student profile, especially in the area of the verbal score).


No. SFS only publishes their *admitted* students statistics. Harvard, Yale, Princeton ect... reveal the SATs of their actual class, not just their admitted class. There is often quite a difference between the class you desire and the class you get. In any case, admitted student scores tend to be higher than the scores of the actual class (for obvious reasons). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.13.80 (talk) 13:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Message to 68.34.232.210[edit]

I have restored the 6/6/05 comment. If you want to delete the comment , please do so on the basis of facts. Engage in debate within the discussion forum-do not act like a cowardly vandal. Perhaps you are ignorant of the current college admissions situation today which may differ from your historic memory. The fact is that Georgetown is in the family of the very best institutions and sits at the head table. The applicant cross of Georgetown with the very best schools has grown to the point that Duke, Harvard and UPenn have, for many years, traveled the country along with Georgetown to hold joint forums for high school students and other interested parties that address the many common concerns over the top school admissions process.

The SFS has objective criteria (see the SAT scores above) of such a high level that inevitably, it will attract students who could have attended even the very best institutions. Edmund Fiske, the noted education editor has stated " only a handful of Ivy League Schools and Stanford are more difficult to enter than Georgetown." Remember that Fiske is referring to Georgetown as one overall blended institution. The SFS has the highest yield rate of the Georgetown schools so its enrollment draw is even higher. When the Princeton Review ranks Georgetown as the 11th most selective, it is again evaluating Georgetown as a blended institution. Relative to Wikipedia's neutrality criteria, the statement on SFS cross enrollments is supported by facts and not governed by prejudice. Under the Wikiepdia rules, it is not subject to deletion.

recent edit[edit]

I cut out most of the stuff that looked like it was from the admissions brochure. We have to remember the audience here. Does the typical Wikipedia reader who looks up SFS really care that SFS is "joining four other U.S. universities in opening a campus in Education City in Doha, Qatar" and that the "non-profit Qatar Foundation" is paying for it?

Also, I cut out the tacky boasting (i.e., "best and brightest", "credentials at such a high level") and all the oblique references to famous alumni (i.e., "an American president", "long-serving CIA director," etc.), replacing them with a more measured (and hence realistic) statement and with real names.

I brought to the top what is the most important fact that people should take away: that SFS is the oldest school of IR in the United States. Toward the end, I also inserted what I believe to be an objective statement of some characteristics of SFS students.

Jack Ryan, Fictional Character[edit]

Jack Ryan is a fictional character, the alumni list only contains real individuals. However, it does appear that he would have fit in well.

Photographs of Father Walsh and Intercultural Center from Georgetown Digital Collection need to be Restored[edit]

American Foreign Policy Magazine ranked the graduate program there as the worlds foremost.

"the foremost undergraduate institution for the study of diplomacy and international law in the world"[edit]

I do not think this statement is NPOV, as it is not supported by any sort of comprehensive ranking. I do realize and freely acknowledge that the SFS is extraordinarly well regarded and produces some of the most highly placed alumni of any school in the world, and that it very well could be regarded as "the foremost undergraduate institution for the study of diplomacy and international law in the world." Yet I believe the way it is stated, as a overt fact, makes it inappropiated in an encyclopedia. Trojan traveler 01:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trojan Traveler- I believe there was a formal ranking in Foreign Policy magazine a few years back that supports this but such a ranking is really inconsequential to the facts of the situation. Anyway you want to look at ranking international affairs schools and programs- from measuring alumni of influence, to evaluating faculty of influence and accomplishment, to any setting forth of average SAT scores and class ranks of entering students, to setting forth actual number of entries into the foreign service and the CIA, -any way you look at it, slice it, dice it, disect it-Georgetown SFS is the number one undergraduate program. Quite literally, you have a situation in which every last fact and every piece of evidence is clear and unambiguous. Watering down this statement to say, for instance, Georgetown is "one of the leading or best undergraduate schools" would actually be the misleading statement,and the one that would be giving false information to someone checking an encyclopedia.

Now at the graduate level,things are quite different. There are a number of competing programs and there is competing evidence. But at the undergraduate level, no one anywhere with any access to facts and information can plausibly support another school as a challenger to Georgetown as a first degree program.

To use an analogy-People say the United States is the World's only Superpower and they do so in encyclopedic and reference type entries to publications. Now there is no formal ranking from the Financial Times, Der Spiegel or Time Magazine to say this officially, but all the facts-level of GDP, size of nuclear arsenal,etc. are so overwhelming that no one can possibly challenge the statement.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.161.246 (talk • contribs)

I was going to mention this paragraph - according to Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism, there shouldn't be things like "it's the most prestigious..." unless backed up. The article does a very good job of establishing the prominence and quality of the institution without using ambigious and subjective words like "foremost" and "prestigious." --Awiseman 03:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously this is a very strong claim and needs a specific source. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"a reputation for being bright, practical-minded, and eager to get ahead in Washington and capitals around the world, where many have reached the highest levels." This statement seems to have been dropped in without regard to source citation, and isn't NPOV. I think a revision is in order - it's Wikipedia, not the brochure.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.202.75 (talk • contribs)
Agreed, I'm going to do that now --AW 06:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I removed some things, per avoid academic boosterism and the NPOV policy, specifically Let the facts speak for themselves --AW 06:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note to 68.98.161.246[edit]

One could also note that most of the principal diplomatic/intelligence officers -Secretary of State, Under Secretary of Defense, CIA Director, UN Ambassador, National Security Advisor etc. of the past few administrations of the world's only Superpower teach at Georgetown SFS (and that doesn't even address the former Foreign Heads of State/Government on the faculty).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.207.253.101 (talk • contribs)

Note to Mr. Parham[edit]

See the link http://www.the hoya.com/news/101003/news6.cfm link in which the Dean Emeritus from Georgetown makes the statement in question ("we can say without trepidation that the undergraduate program is the finest in the world." Since a responsible individual with high credibility (former White House Fellow, current Director of Several Major International Organizations, PBS Moderator and a past leader of the Association of Professional Schools of International Affairs) has made this statement, a credible source does exist to back up the entry.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.207.253.96 (talk • contribs)

Anonymous, I don't think a source inside the school counts. --Awiseman 21:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His neutrality on the issue would be somewhat suspect. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Position of Subject Matter Expert Makes Statement even Stronger rather than Weaker[edit]

In the circles this subject matter expert, Dr. Krogh travels in, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group ( a mid 1990s attendee), the White House Fellows Association etc., he would be putting his professional reputation at risk to make a statement like this publicly if it were not unassailable. The fact that someone in his position and with his visibility, fully and confidently makes the statement, demonstrates its validity in my view.

The fact is, that with the sensitivity people in general have to college rankings these days (a function of the high tuitions versus the levels they were at decades ago,in my view, but that is another topic) the moment this statement hit the internet and the newspaper the street, three years ago, Krogh would have been excoriated and taken to task in other publications, letters, blogs, etc. if his statement was not true and would have been chided at the very next one of his high powered meetings.

Notice also the measured and circumspect manner he addressed the question of the status of the Georgetown Graduate Program in which he indicated the true situation which is that the grad program is top 2 or 3. The statements Krogh made are of the measured, bounded, airtight, nature one would expect from someone of his very high status and profile. They are obviously supportive of the point even taking into consideration any prejudice he may have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.161.246 (talk • contribs)

The headline of the article is "Dr. Peter F. Krogh: The Architect of the SFS". He's obviously an intelligent guy, but who would say the school they're affiliated with is bad? --AW 18:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why Not "Among the Foremost" Wording?[edit]

Suggestion of "among the Foremost"-recognizes grad program and not subject to dispute. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.98.161.246 (talk • contribs).

Find a good solid reference in mainstream media or books.Pär Larsson (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest[edit]

I believe there is a conflict of interest going on at this page. The IP user User:68.98.161.246 has only made edits to this page and related pages, is putting in unsourced things, and is ignoring their talk page. This leads me to believe that the person is somehow affiliated with Georgetown. --AW 18:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Knatchbull[edit]

What exactly is the outstanding achievement of this lady? Being Assistant Director at FTI Consulting? Being a distant relative of the British royal family? 87.184.72.106 (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted her from the list 193.197.158.250 (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi Awiseman, I noticed you tagged the article with {{Advert}} for containing weasel words. Could you give some examples, so that I or others might try to clean it up? Ergo Sum 03:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Walsh_School_of_Foreign_Service&oldid=1207147433"